Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 51 references

High-Field Quantum Disordered State in $\alpha$-RuCl3: Spin Flips, Bound States, and a Multi-Particle Continuum

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read High-field spectroscopy identifies α-RuCl3's field-induced phase as a partially polarized quantum disordered state, not a spin liquid.

desk verdict New high-field Raman/THz data give a credible QDS picture for α-RuCl3, but the 'firmly establishes' relies on an under-displayed slope extrapolation and an adjusted ED model. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11617 v1 pith:7XVE5MXI submitted 2019-08-30 cond-mat.str-el

A. Sahasrabudhe , D. A. S. Kaib , S. Reschke , R. German , T. C. Koethe , J. Buhot , D. Kamenskyi , C. Hickey
show 10 more authors
P. Becker V. Tsurkan A. Loidl S. H. Do K. Y. Choi M. Grüninger S. M. Winter Zhe Wang R. Valenti P. H. M. van Loosdrecht
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords α-RuCl3KitaevspinliquidquantumdisorderedstateRamanspectroscopyterahertzspin-flipexcitationtwo-particleboundexactdiagonalization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to settle what happens in the layered magnetic material α-RuCl3 when a magnetic field above about 7.5 tesla suppresses its antiferromagnetic order. Using Raman and terahertz spectroscopy up to 33 tesla, it resolves three distinct magnetic excitations: a sharp single-particle spin-flip mode, a two-particle bound state, and a gapped multi-particle continuum. The authors argue this spectrum identifies the high-field phase as a partially polarized quantum disordered state, neither the long-sought Kitaev spin liquid nor the fully polarized magnet. They also use the single-particle mode's energy-versus-field slope to resolve a controversy about anomalously steep slopes reported near the critical field.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Fleury-Loudon scattering operator $F \propto \sum_{ij} \mathbf{S}_i \cdot \hat{J}_{ij} \cdot \mathbf{S}_j (\boldsymbol{\delta}_{ij} \cdot \mathbf{E}_{\mathrm{in}})(\boldsymbol{\delta}_{ij} \cdot \mathbf{E}_{\mathrm{out}}^*)$, which generates Raman intensity from exchange-mediated light scattering. In a conventional magnet this operator creates two-magnon excitations; the paper shows that in a Kitaev magnet with bond-dependent and off-diagonal exchange, terms with $S_i^{\mu} S_j^{\nu}$, $\mu \neq \nu$, create single spin-flip ($|\Delta S| = 1$) excitations, making the single-particle mode m1α Raman-active. Exact diagonalization on a 24-site cluster with an adjusted model $(J_1, K_1^{x/y}, K_1^{z}, \Gamma_1, J_3) = (-0.5, -7.5, -5, 2.5, 0.5) \times 1.5$ meV, with broken $C_3$ symmetry, reproduces the measured field dependence and identifies the Kitaev and off-diagonal terms as responsible for the observed single-particle peak and continuum.

What would settle it

If Raman or THz data above 33 T reveal m1α splitting or a slope discontinuity, or if inelastic neutron scattering shows that m1α carries a different spectral weight than a single spin flip, the central identification fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the field-induced phase above Bc = 7.5 T in α-RuCl3 is a quantum disordered state with partial field alignment of the spin-orbital moments, not a quantum spin liquid and not a fully field-polarized state. The evidence is spectroscopic: a well-defined single-particle excitation m1α whose high-field slope g* approaches 2.51 ± 0.18, a two-particle bound state m2γ slightly below a gapped multi-particle continuum, and the absence of any additional phase transition up to 33 T. The steep intermediate-field slopes reported earlier are attributed to level repulsion between the single-particle mode and the continuum, so they do not indicate fractionalization or an enormous g-factor. Exact diagonalization of a realistic C3-broken Kitaev model reproduces the field-dependent Raman response, including the single-particle mode, only when Kitaev and off-diagonal exchange terms enter the Fleury-Loudon scattering operator.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the sharp mode m1α is truly a single spin-flip excitation whose high-field slope flattens to the reported 2.51 ± 0.18, because the entire resolution of the slope controversy and the quantum-disordered-state assignment rests on that identification and extrapolation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The high-field phase of α-RuCl3 above 7.5 T is a partially polarized quantum disordered state; no sign of a separate intermediate phase appears up to 33 T.
  • The asymptotic slope g* = 2.51 ± 0.18 confirms m1α as the mode that grows into the infinite-field |ΔS| = 1 spin flip, settling the steep-slope debate.
  • Kitaev and off-diagonal exchange terms in the Fleury-Loudon operator are essential: conventional two-magnon Raman would not show the sharp single-particle mode.
  • One expects similar high-field behavior in other Kitaev candidate materials, notably the iridates.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the quantum-disordered-state assignment is right, the same single-particle mode should appear in other spectroscopic probes, such as inelastic neutron scattering under field, and its dispersion would directly test the adjusted model's parameters.
  • The asymptotic g* ≈ 2.5 constrains the in-plane g-factor; a full in-plane angular dependence of m1α would discriminate among the C3-broken parameter sets.
  • The observed two-particle bound state slightly below the continuum invites the question of whether it condenses or hybridizes at even higher fields; extending measurements to pulsed fields beyond 33 T could test this.
  • The strategy of fitting the full field range to extract an asymptotic slope, rather than focusing near the critical field, could be applied to other Kitaev candidates where steep intermediate slopes have been interpreted as evidence for fractionalization.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports Raman and THz spectroscopic measurements of α-RuCl3 in in-plane magnetic fields up to 33 T. The authors observe that the low-energy magnon modes in the zero-field zig-zag ordered phase are suppressed at a field-induced transition around Bc = 7.5 T, where the Raman continuum intensity is maximized. In the high-field phase they identify a sharp single-particle mode m1α, a satellite m1β, a two-particle bound state m2γ, and a gapped multi-particle continuum with a broad maximum m2α ≈ 2m1α. They assign m1α to the |ΔS| = 1 spin-flip excitation of a partially polarized quantum disordered state (QDS) based on an asymptotic slope g* = 2.51 ± 0.18 extracted from a fit over the full field range. Exact diagonalization of a C3-broken Kitaev-Heisenberg-Γ model reproduces the main spectral features and shows that Kitaev and off-diagonal terms in the Fleury-Loudon operator are required to observe the single-particle mode in Raman scattering. The paper concludes that the high-field phase is neither a quantum spin liquid nor a fully polarized state but a partially polarized QDS.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, the paper provides a resolution of the controversy over the steep intermediate-field slopes (g* ≈ 8) by attributing them to level repulsion and anisotropic-coupling effects rather than to fractionalized excitations. The combined Raman and THz dataset up to 30–33 T, including the observation of a two-particle bound state and a gapped continuum, is a substantial experimental contribution. The ED calculations underline the importance of Kitaev and off-diagonal exchange in the Raman response. However, the central mode assignment rests on an asymptotic-slope extraction whose details are not given in the main text, and the supporting ED model is adjusted to reproduce the measured slope; these issues currently prevent the paper from 'firmly establishing' the QDS interpretation. The paper is nevertheless a strong candidate for publication after the analysis is made more transparent and the claims appropriately qualified.

major comments (3)
  1. [p.4, paragraph beginning 'An important quantity of interest...'] The asymptotic slope g*|B→∞ = 2.51 ± 0.18 is obtained from a fit whose functional form is described only in the Supplemental Material [39]. The main text does not report the fit function, the number of free parameters, the field range included in the fit, or any measure of fit quality. This is a load-bearing result: it is the basis for identifying m1α as the |ΔS| = 1 single-particle spin-flip mode, which in turn anchors the QDS conclusion. Because the slope at 30 T (~3) is still substantially above the claimed asymptotic value, the extrapolation to infinite field is nontrivial. Please present the fit and demonstrate its robustness, for example by varying the fitting window (e.g., using only B > 20 T) and by testing alternative functional forms, and discuss how the uncertainty in the THz field orientation affects the extracted g*.
  2. [Fig. 3(b) and the text describing the 'adjusted model'] The exact diagonalization model parameters (J1, Kx/y, Kz, Γ1, J3) = (−0.5, −7.5, −5, 2.5, 0.5)·1.5 meV are explicitly described as 'adjusted' so that the model captures the strong field dependence of g*. This makes the numerical support for the single-particle assignment partially circular: the model has been tuned to reproduce the very quantity it is used to interpret. The experimental observation of the sharp mode and continuum is independent, but the claim that the ED calculations 'demonstrate' the single-particle character is overstated. The authors should clarify which spectral features are generic to the parameter region derived from ab initio studies and which depend specifically on the fit to g*(B).
  3. [Conclusions, first paragraph] The claim that the study 'firmly establishes' the partially-polarized quantum disordered character of the high-field phase is stronger than the evidence supports. The mode assignments are plausible, and the spectroscopic observations are consistent with a QDS, but the identification of m1α as the |ΔS|=1 mode relies on the extrapolation discussed above, and no direct measurement of spin correlations or static magnetization is presented. I recommend either providing the missing fit details and robustness checks or softening the conclusion to state that the results strongly support, rather than firmly establish, the QDS interpretation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2(a)-(b)] The 0.6 meV offset between the Raman and THz peak positions of m1α is attributed to in-plane anisotropy, but the in-plane field orientation was not determined for the THz measurements. Since the THz data are used in the g* extraction, this systematic offset should be included in the uncertainty budget or analyzed as a separate systematic.
  2. [Supplemental Material [39]] The fit used to extract g* is referenced only as [39]. Please include the fit expression and parameter values in the main text or in a table in the Supplemental so that readers can assess the extrapolation without consulting an external reference.
  3. [Experimental setup, Fig. 2(a)] The laser power of 100 µW used for high-field Raman measurements causes sample heating that suppresses the low-energy magnon modes and weakens m1α at 8 T; this power dependence should be acknowledged as a limitation when comparing intensities across field regimes.
  4. [Conclusion, sentence about intermediate phase] The statement 'No clear evidence is found for an intermediate phase around 7.5 T' is based on the field dependence of the Raman and THz features; a narrow intermediate phase could be missed by these measurements. A more cautious phrasing would be 'no evidence for an intermediate phase was resolved in our measurements.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the high-field QDS claim is anchored in direct Raman/THz measurements, with the adjusted ED model and overlapping-author citations serving as transparent consistency checks rather than definitional inputs.

full rationale

The paper derives its central conclusion from spectroscopic data rather than from its own assumptions: the high-field phase is characterized by a directly observed gapped multi-particle continuum, a two-particle bound state m2γ, and a sharp single-particle mode m1α in both Raman and THz. The key quantitative step is the extraction of the asymptotic slope g*|B→∞ = 2.51 ± 0.18 from the measured field dependence of the m1α peak over the full field range; this is an extrapolation of measured peak positions, and although the fitting function is only in the Supplemental, that is a robustness and transparency concern, not a definitional circularity. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the exact-diagonalization model in Fig. 3(b) is an 'adjusted model' chosen to capture the measured field dependence of g*; using that model to assign single-particle character to m1α is a consistency check, not a fitted prediction, because the single-particle nature, continuum, and bound state are emergent outputs of the ED calculation, and the experimental identification is independently supported by the infinite-field Fleury-Loudon argument and by comparison with prior THz studies. Overlapping-author citations (e.g., Refs. [12,20,43]) provide context and prior theoretical support, but the central claim is not justified solely by those citations; the external constraint 2 ≤ g_ab ≤ 2.8 and the direct field dependence of the measured modes carry the argument. No step reduces, by construction, to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central interpretation leans on an exchange model whose parameters are partly adjusted to match the measured g*(B), so these parameters carry fit information. No new particles or fields are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • ED model exchange parameters (J1, Kx/y, Kz, Γ1, J3) = (-0.5, -7.5, -5, 2.5, 0.5) × 1.5 meV
    Chosen as an 'adjusted model' to reproduce the experimental field dependence of the single-particle slope g*(B) (Fig. 3(b) caption); these parameters are therefore fit to the target result, not independently predicted.
  • Landé g-factor gab = 2.3
    Used for the ED calculations (Fig. 3(b) caption, 'assuming gab = 2.3'); a free input from the range 2-2.8, affecting the quantitative comparison.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Fleury-Loudon approximation for Raman scattering
    Used to compute the Raman response in Sec. 'To complement the experimental results'; standard for magnetic Raman but an approximation that may miss other scattering channels.
  • domain assumption C3 symmetry breaking of exchange couplings
    The model takes Kx=Ky≠Kz, motivated by ab-initio calculations for the C2/m structure [45]; if the actual symmetry breaking differs, the ED results may not apply.
  • domain assumption 24-site cluster is representative of the thermodynamic limit
    The exact diagonalization is performed on a 24-site cluster with periodic boundary conditions; finite-size effects on the continuum and bound state are not quantified.
  • domain assumption Validity of ab-initio exchange parameters
    The baseline model parameters come from prior ab-initio studies; the paper adjusts them, so the final parameters are not derived from first principles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-Field Quantum Disordered State in $\alpha$-RuCl3: Spin Flips, Bound States, and a Multi-Particle Continuum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7XVE5MXI

@misc{pith2026190811617,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-Field Quantum Disordered State in $\alpha$-RuCl3: Spin Flips, Bound States, and a Multi-Particle Continuum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7XVE5MXI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11617}
}
abstract

Layered $\alpha$-RuCl3 has been discussed as a proximate Kitaev spin liquid compound. Raman and THz spectroscopy of magnetic excitations confirm that the low-temperature antiferromagnetic ordered phase features a broad Raman continuum, together with two magnon-like excitations at 2.7 and 3.6 meV, respectively. The continuum strength is maximized as long-range order is suppressed by an external magnetic field. The state above the field-induced quantum phase transition around 7.5 T is characterized by a gapped multi-particle continuum out of which a two-particle bound state emerges, together with a well-defined single-particle excitation at lower energy. Exact diagonalization calculations demonstrate that Kitaev and off-diagonal exchange terms in the Fleury-Loudon operator are crucial for the occurrence of these features in the Raman spectra. Our study firmly establishes the partially-polarized quantum disordered character of the high-field phase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11617 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) Circularly-polarized (LR) Raman spectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: High-field (a) 100 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (a) Contour plot of experimental 100 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [39]

    P. A. Fleury and R. Loudon, Phys. Rev. 166, 514 (1968), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRev.166.514

    work page 1968

  2. [1]

    As observed in the experiment [Fig

    is moti- vated by ab-initio calculations [45] for the C2/m struc- ture of α-RuCl3 [15, 50]. As observed in the experiment [Fig. 3(a)], a continuum extends throughout a wide en- ergy range below Bc in the numerical results [Fig. 3(b)], while for B >Bc, the continuum rises in energy. Above Bc, a strong, sharp mode emerges at lowest energies, which shifts to...

    work page

  3. [2]

    L. D. Faddeev and L. A. Takhtajan, Phys. Lett. A 85, 375377 (1981)

    work page 1981

  4. [3]

    Kitaev, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006), ISSN 0003-4916, january Special Issue, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0003491605002381

    A. Kitaev, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006), ISSN 0003-4916, january Special Issue, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0003491605002381

    work page 2006

  5. [4]

    Trebst (2017), preprint, arXiv:1701.07056

    S. Trebst (2017), preprint, arXiv:1701.07056

    arXiv 2017

  6. [5]

    S. M. Winter, A. A. Tsirlin, M. Daghofer, J. van den Brink, Y. Singh, P. Gegenwart, and R. Valenti, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 29, 493002 (2017), URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1361-648x%2Faa8cf5

    work page 2017

  7. [6]

    Hermanns, I

    M. Hermanns, I. Kimchi, and J. Knolle, An- nual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 9, 17 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys- 033117-053934, URL https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-conmatphys-033117-053934

    doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys- 2018

  8. [7]

    Takagi, T

    H. Takagi, T. Takayama, G. Jackeli, G. Khaliullin, and S. E. Nagler, Nature Reviews Physics 1, 264 (2019), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-019-0038-2

    doi:10.1038/s42254-019-0038-2 2019

Show all 51 references
  1. [8]

    Jackeli and G

    G. Jackeli and G. Khaliullin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 017205 (2009), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.102.017205

    2009

  2. [9]

    Banerjee, J

    A. Banerjee, J. Yan, J. Knolle, C. A. Bridges, M. B. Stone, M. D. Lumsden, D. G. Mandrus, D. A. Ten- nant, R. Moessner, and S. E. Nagler, Science 356, 1055 (2017), ISSN 0036-8075, URL http://science. sciencemag.org/content/356/6342/1055

    2017

  3. [10]

    L. J. Sandilands, Y. Tian, K. W. Plumb, Y.- J. Kim, and K. S. Burch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 147201 (2015), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.114.147201

    2015

  4. [11]

    Banerjee, C

    A. Banerjee, C. A. Bridges, J.-Q. Yan, A. A. Aczel, L. Li, M. B. Stone, G. E. Granroth, M. D. Lumsden, Y. Yiu, J. Knolle, et al., Nature Materials 15, 733 (2016), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmat4604

    2016 doi

  5. [12]

    Do, S.-Y

    S.-H. Do, S.-Y. Park, J. Yoshitake, J. Nasu, Y. Motome, Y. S. Kwon, D. T. Adroja, D. J. Voneshen, K. Kim, T.- H. Jang, et al., Nature Physics 13, 1079 (2017), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys4264

    2017 doi

  6. [13]

    Z. Wang, S. Reschke, D. H¨ uvonen, S.-H. Do, K.-Y. Choi, M. Gensch, U. Nagel, T. R˜ o om, and A. Loidl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 227202 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.227202

    2017 doi

  7. [14]

    Y. Wang, G. B. Osterhoudt, Y. Tian, P. Lampen-Kelley, A. Banerjee, T. Goldstein, J. Yan, J. Knolle, H. Ji, R. J. Cava, et al. (2018), arXiv:1809.07782v3, URL https:// arxiv.org/abs/1809.07782

    2018 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Reschke, V

    S. Reschke, V. Tsurkan, S.-H. Do, K.-Y. Choi, P. Lunken- heimer, Z. Wang, and A. Loidl (2019), preprint, arXiv:1902.10453

    2019 arXiv

  9. [16]

    R. D. Johnson, S. C. Williams, A. A. Haghighirad, J. Singleton, V. Zapf, P. Manuel, I. I. Mazin, Y. Li, H. O. Jeschke, R. Valent´ ı, et al., Phys. Rev. B 92, 235119 (2015), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.92.235119

    2015

  10. [17]

    I. A. Leahy, C. A. Pocs, P. E. Siegfried, D. Graf, S.-H. Do, K.-Y. Choi, B. Normand, and M. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 187203 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.187203

    2017 doi

  11. [18]

    J. A. Sears, Y. Zhao, Z. Xu, J. W. Lynn, and Y.-J. Kim, Phys. Rev. B 95, 180411 (2017), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.95.180411

    2017 doi

  12. [19]

    A. U. B. Wolter, L. T. Corredor, L. Janssen, K. Nenkov, S. Sch¨ onecker, S.-H. Do, K.-Y. Choi, R. Albrecht, J. Hunger, T. Doert, et al., Phys. Rev. B 96, 041405 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.96.041405

    2017

  13. [20]

    Baek, S.-H

    S.-H. Baek, S.-H. Do, K.-Y. Choi, Y. S. Kwon, A. U. B. Wolter, S. Nishimoto, J. van den Brink, and B. B¨ uchner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 037201 (2017), URL https:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.037201

    2017 doi

  14. [21]

    S. M. Winter, K. Riedl, D. Kaib, R. Coldea, and R. Valent´ ı, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 077203 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 120.077203

    2018 doi

  15. [22]

    Janˇ sa, A

    N. Janˇ sa, A. Zorko, M. Gomilˇ sek, M. Pregelj, K. W. Kr¨ amer, D. Biner, A. Biffin, C. R¨ uegg, and M. Klanjˇ sek, Nature Phys. 14, 786 (2018), URL https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41567-018-0129-5

    2018 doi

  16. [23]

    A. N. Ponomaryov, E. Schulze, J. Wosnitza, P. Lampen- Kelley, A. Banerjee, J.-Q. Yan, C. A. Bridges, D. G. Man- drus, S. E. Nagler, A. K. Kolezhuk, et al., Phys. Rev. B 96, 241107 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 6 10.1103/PhysRevB.96.241107

    2017 doi

  17. [24]

    Zheng, K

    J. Zheng, K. Ran, T. Li, J. Wang, P. Wang, B. Liu, Z.-X. Liu, B. Normand, J. Wen, and W. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 227208 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.227208

    2017 doi

  18. [25]

    Hentrich, A

    R. Hentrich, A. U. B. Wolter, X. Zotos, W. Brenig, D. Nowak, A. Isaeva, T. Doert, A. Banerjee, P. Lampen- Kelley, D. G. Mandrus, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 117204 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.120.117204

    2018

  19. [26]

    Banerjee, P

    A. Banerjee, P. Lampen-Kelley, J. Knolle, C. Balz, A. A. Aczel, B. Winn, Y. Liu, D. Pajerowski, a. B. C. A. Yan, Jiaqiang, A. T. Savici, et al., npj Quantum Ma- terials 3, 8 (2018), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41535-018-0079-2

    2018

  20. [27]

    Lampen-Kelley, L

    P. Lampen-Kelley, L. Janssen, E. C. Andrade, S. Rachel, J.-Q. Yan, C. Balz, D. G. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, and M. Vojta (2018), arXiv:1807.06192, arXiv:1807.06192

    2018 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Wellm, J

    C. Wellm, J. Zeisner, A. Alfonsov, A. U. B. Wolter, M. Roslova, A. Isaeva, T. Doert, M. Vo- jta, B. B¨ uchner, and V. Kataev, Phys. Rev. B 98, 184408 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.98.184408

    2018

  22. [29]

    Kasahara, T

    Y. Kasahara, T. Ohnishi, Y. Mizukami, O. Tanaka, S. Ma, K. Sugii, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, J. Nasu, Y. Mo- tome, et al., Nature 559, 227 (2018), URL https://doi. org/10.1038/s41586-018-0274-0

    2018 doi

  23. [30]

    C. Balz, P. Lampen-Kelley, A. Banerjee, J. Yan, Z. Lu, X. Hu, S. M. Yadav, Y. Takano, Y. Liu, D. A. Tennant, et al. (2019), preprint, arXiv:1903.00056

    2019 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Knolle, G.-W

    J. Knolle, G.-W. Chern, D. L. Kovrizhin, R. Moess- ner, and N. B. Perkins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 187201 (2014), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.113.187201

    2014

  25. [32]

    J. Nasu, J. Knolle, D. L. Kovrizhin, Y. Motome, and R. Moessner, Nature Physics 12, 912 (2016)

    2016

  26. [33]

    Widmann, V

    S. Widmann, V. Tsurkan, D. A. Prishchenko, V. G. Mazurenko, A. A. Tsirlin, and A. Loidl, Phys. Rev. B 99, 094415 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.99.094415

    2019 doi

  27. [34]

    Reschke, F

    S. Reschke, F. Mayr, S. Widmann, H.-A. K. von Nidda, V. Tsurkan, M. V. Eremin, S.-H. Do, K.-Y. Choi, Z. Wang, and A. Loidl, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 30, 475604 (2018), URL https://doi.org/10. 1088/1361-648x/aae805

    2018

  28. [35]

    Glamazda, P

    A. Glamazda, P. Lemmens, S.-H. Do, Y. S. Kwon, and K.-Y. Choi, Phys. Rev. B95, 174429 (2017), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.95.174429

    2017 doi

  29. [36]

    Little, L

    A. Little, L. Wu, P. Lampen-Kelley, A. Banerjee, S. Patankar, D. Rees, C. A. Bridges, J.-Q. Yan, D. Man- drus, S. E. Nagler, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 227201 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.119.227201

    2017

  30. [37]

    L. Y. Shi, Y. Q. Liu, T. Lin, M. Y. Zhang, S. J. Zhang, L. Wang, Y. G. Shi, T. Dong, and N. L. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 98, 094414 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.98.094414

    2018 doi

  31. [38]

    L. Wu, A. Little, E. E. Aldape, D. Rees, E. The- walt, P. Lampen-Kelley, A. Banerjee, C. A. Bridges, J.-Q. Yan, D. Boone, et al., Phys. Rev. B 98, 094425 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.98.094425

    2018

  32. [40]

    Contains a theo- retical analysis of the Raman and terahertz scattering mechanisms and details on the ED calculations

    See Supplementary Information at .... Contains a theo- retical analysis of the Raman and terahertz scattering mechanisms and details on the ED calculations

  33. [41]

    Chaloupka and G

    J. Chaloupka and G. Khaliullin, Phys. Rev. B 94, 064435 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.94.064435

    2016

  34. [42]

    Yadav, N

    R. Yadav, N. A. Bogdanov, V. M. Katukuri, S. Nishi- moto, J. van den Brink, and L. Hozoi, Scientific Re- ports 6, 37925 (2016), URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1038/srep37925

    2016

  35. [43]

    Janssen, E

    L. Janssen, E. C. Andrade, and M. Vojta, Phys. Rev. B 96, 064430 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.96.064430

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    Riedl, Y

    K. Riedl, Y. Li, S. M. Winter, and R. Valent´ ı, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 197202 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.197202

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    S. V. Vonsovskii, Ferromagnetic resonance: The phe- nomenon of resonant absorption of a high-frequency mag- netic field in ferromagnetic substances (Pergamon, Ox- ford, 1966)

    1966

  38. [46]

    S. M. Winter, Y. Li, H. O. Jeschke, and R. Valent´ ı, Phys. Rev. B 93, 214431 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.93.214431

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    Kim and H.-Y

    H.-S. Kim and H.-Y. Kee, Phys. Rev. B 93, 155143 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.93.155143

    2016

  40. [48]

    Wang, Z.-Y

    W. Wang, Z.-Y. Dong, S.-L. Yu, and J.-X. Li, Phys. Rev. B 96, 115103 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.96.115103

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    Y. S. Hou, H. J. Xiang, and X. G. Gong, Phys. Rev. B 96, 054410 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.96.054410

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    S. M. Winter, K. Riedl, P. A. Maksimov, A. L. Cherny- shev, A. Honecker, and R. Valent´ ı, Nature Communica- tions 8, 1152 (2017), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-017-01177-0

    2017

  43. [51]

    H. B. Cao, A. Banerjee, J.-Q. Yan, C. A. Bridges, M. D. Lumsden, D. G. Mandrus, D. A. Tennant, B. C. Chakoumakos, and S. E. Nagler, Phys. Rev. B 93, 134423 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.93.134423

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.